Cited by 476Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesNeural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesMemory and Neural Mechanisms

Anxious individuals have difficulty learning the causal statistics of aversive environments

Open access
Browning, Michael, Behrens, Timothy E, Jocham, Gerhard, O'Reilly, Jill X, Bishop, Sonia J·2015·Nature Neuroscience

Abstract

Statistical regularities in the causal structure of the environment enable us to predict the probable outcomes of our actions. Environments differ in the extent to which action-outcome contingencies are stable or volatile. Difficulty in being able to use this information to optimally update outcome predictions might contribute to the decision-making difficulties seen in anxiety. We tested this using an aversive learning task manipulating environmental volatility. Human participants low in trait anxiety matched updating of their outcome predictions to the volatility of the current environment, as predicted by a Bayesian model. Individuals with high trait anxiety showed less ability to adjust updating of outcome expectancies between stable and volatile environments. This was linked to reduced sensitivity of the pupil dilatory response to volatility, potentially indicative of altered norepinephrinergic responsivity to changes in this aspect of environmental information.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/nn.3961

Cites

23 of 23 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • In predictive processing terms, there may be an over-precision of negative predictions about the future in anxiety, coupled with an inability to down-regulate error signals related to ambiguous stimuli.

    “In predictive processing terms, there may be an over-precision (49, 62, 63) of negative predictions about the future, coupled with an inability to down-regulate error signals related to ambiguous stimuli.”

    From Predictive coding and neurocomputational psychiatry: a mechanistic framework for understanding mental disorders (2026) · cites this paper as [62]

    The Abstract says anxious individuals focus disproportionately on future negative outcomes, and the Discussion reports difficulty adjusting learning about aversive outcomes to environmental volatility. But the paper does not establish over-precision of negative predictions or an inability to down-regulate error signals for ambiguous stimuli; the Discussion says high- and low-trait-anxious participants did not differ in their response to surprising adverse outcomes. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Computational studies of reward and punishment decision-making show that people adjust how quickly they learn action-outcome contingencies when environmental volatility changes.

    “While computational studies of decision-making about rewards and punishments show that participants adapt their rate of learning about action-outcome contingencies in response to changes in environmental volatility 8–10”
  • In volatile environments, people should weight recent sensory outcomes more heavily when forming expectations; in stable environments, they should weight the distant past more heavily.

    “When the environment is volatile people should give more weight to recent sensory outcomes in building expectations about what they will see next (e.g. adopt a high α), in contrast they should give information from the distant past more weight when the environment is stable (e.g. adopt a low α) 8,9.”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [9]Sutton R Barto AG Reinforcement Learning 1998 MIT Press

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Browning, M., Behrens, T. E., Jocham, G., O'Reilly, J. X., & Bishop, S. J.
Affiliations
John Radcliffe Hospital (GB)
Corresponding author
Bishop, Sonia J
Venue
Nature Neuroscience
Published
2015-03-02
Volume
18
Issue
4
Pages
590-596
ISSN
  • 1097-6256 (ISSN-L)
  • 1546-1726
OpenAlex
W2076285657
Cited by
476
References
23
Citations by year
2026: 52 · 2025: 62 · 2024: 60 · 2023: 50 · 2022: 53 · 2021: 45 · 2020: 44 · 2019: 34 · 2018: 25 · 2017: 30 · 2016: 16 · 2015: 5
FWCI
38.16
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Nature Neuroscience (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • Wellcome Trust (104765/Z/14/Z)
  • University of Oxford
  • National Institutes of Health
  • Medical Research Council (MR/L019639/1)
  • National Institute of Mental Health (R01MH091848)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory and Neural Mechanisms
Keywords
anxiety, aversive learning, environmental volatility, Bayesian updating, outcome prediction, decision-making, norepinephrine, pupillometry, action-outcome contingency, trait anxiety, computational modeling
MeSH terms
Adaptation, Psychological, Adolescent, Adult, Anxiety, Avoidance Learning, Bayes Theorem, Electric Stimulation, Environment, Female, Humans, Learning, Male, Personality, Pupil, Uncertainty, Young Adult

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review